What's the damage likely to be?

[Dark Skies]

That seems fair. My blued revolver cost £100 and needed ne nips. That cost the nips and three wrenchesn to get them out..

It would have helped you if the seller had been more honest, I bought mine in person. I would always be wary of a gun described 'as new' after all, that implies no-one has shot it, ever.

To be fair I just don't think he was very familiar with BP pistols - and I didn't know any better. He didn't quibble over anything - and seemed genuine over the phone.

With the exception of my classic military rifles, which have always been refurbished by ordinance depots, I've always bought new.
I would have done in this instance too but I was unsure of how I'd take to BP and didn't want an instant big loss if I didn't 'get it'. So I'm not used to things not working straight out of the box.

I was tempted by a new .36 Colt Navy for a very reasonable £160 - I'd have had it too but I'd done a lot of online 'research' into topless and brass frames and allowed peeps to talk me out of it because "the frame wasn't as strong" and "brass was liable to stretching and putting the timing out" etc. etc. In truth, given the low loads I'm likely to shoot on our range it'd probably have been absolutely fine but ... older boys made me do it sir. :)

[1066]

For what it's worth, I think you made the right choice. If you're interested in accurate shooting, the Remy design with sights will serve you better. ( Unless you want to play at fending off girly pirates.)

[dromia]

I was tempted by a new .36 Colt Navy for a very reasonable £160 - I'd have had it too but I'd done a lot of online 'research' into topless and brass frames and allowed peeps to talk me out of it because "the frame wasn't as strong" and "brass was liable to stretching and putting the timing out" etc. etc. In truth, given the low loads I'm likely to shoot on our range it'd probably have been absolutely fine but ... older boys made me do it sir. :)

More misinformed nonsense, the brass frame is more than adequate for .36 cal BP loads and moderate loads in the .44. Misuse and over loading will ruin any gun.

The open top Colts are theoretically weaker than the the top strap designs but more than adequate for BP. Both designs share the same frame weakness at the bottom of the frame under the loading gate where the metal is amazingly thin, but is sufficient for the task.

Poor quality steel in the early days of the revolvers meant that they had to be built big to take the pressures in the larger calibres like .44 hence the behemoth Walker and Dragoon series of holster pistols, even so the early Walkers were known to have "let go" in the field. Belt pistols were therefore relegated to the smaller calibres so that they could be made small enough to be carried on the person rather than on horse holsters, the Colt .36 Navy being the consummate example of this type.

With the advent of the Bessemer steel process then pistols could be made smaller in the larger calibres and a .44 belt revolver was a possibility, Colt just scaled up and refined the .36 Navy to become the .44 Army and the rest is history as they say.

I like the Colts for their point-ability but their fixed sights can take a bit more work to get them to shoot to point of aim than those with adjustable sight, once done however I find them easier to shoot accurately than the top straps.

[Dark Skies]

More misinformed nonsense ...

If you ask a wide circle of people for advice, and search around on the Internet thoroughly enough ... that's what you get. :)

[Sim G]

Better steel saw the small frame revolvers benefit also. Colts lovely little 1849 went from a five to a six shot. Not as much meat between chambers needed. So much so, a whole new chamber could be added to the same sized cylinder!

[Sim G]

More misinformed nonsense ...

If you ask a wide circle of people for advice, and search around on the Internet thoroughly enough ... that's what you get. :)

Second hand books and old gun magazines offer a greater reference material. Books and magazine articles were "peer reviewed" and bad ones never saw more than one print. A keyboard and an ISP has turned so many clueless amateurs into "experts" almost overnight....

[dromia]

More misinformed nonsense ...

If you ask a wide circle of people for advice, and search around on the Internet thoroughly enough ... that's what you get. :)

Reap what you sow.

[Dark Skies]

For what it's worth, I think you made the right choice. If you're interested in accurate shooting, the Remy design with sights will serve you better. ( Unless you want to play at fending off girly pirates.)

Whilst I quite like the idea of fending off girly pirates (is there some sort of fetish club near the Oxford area for this?) I opted for the traditional basic style of sights - so I can do my Clint Eastwood (Pale Rider) impressions in the privacy of my bedroom. :)

I appreciate the target sights version is more accurate but I wanted to go olde worlde back to basics - which is why I shoot my old under lever rifles a lot more than my modern stuff. Also ... the target sighted Western pistols just look wrong - and ugly.

[dromia]

The target versions are not necessarily more accurate, however the target sights mean that they can help to shoot them more accurately.

[Dark Skies]

The target versions are not necessarily more accurate, however the target sights mean that they can help to shoot them more accurately.

True, that's what I meant to say.

In any event I know I'll be fine with the standard sights once I've got used to the gun.
When I shoot competition targets with my pre-Remington .44 Marlin I don't really focus on the sights so much as point and squeeze - plinking style. It just kind of feels right, I squeeze the trigger, work the lever at the shoulder, repeat as necessary - more of a muscle memory thing as anything. This works very well for me.
I have natural plumb too - as well as a compulsive need to straighten ill-hanging pictures.